Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dreadstar (talk | contribs) at 18:05, 30 April 2010 (→FAQ as Policy: timeframe). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

FAQ as Policy

Consensus from the above discussions appear to show that a FAQ, including this one, should not be Misplaced Pages Policy. Consensus also seems to be that since this FAQ was consindered Policy for so long and that it contained material considered Policy, that this FAQ should remain policy until all the Policy content was moved to WP:NPOV or other Policy pages. Most, if not all of this content has been moved, and what remains does not appear to be Policy material. But, in order to alleviate any concerns that material from this FAQ might still be Policy, I propose that while we downgrade this FAQ from being Policy, we also keep the door open to moving any content from the current version to Policy without dispute. Any new content added to this FAQ should not be considered Policy, but instead any new Policy material should be placed on another, more appropriate WP Policy page. Any objections? Dreadstar † 20:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty, this proposal has been up for ten days without any further objections. In keeping with the above consensus, and since this proposal covers any future requests to move material from the current version to another, appropriate Policy page without dispute, then I think it's very safe to 'downgrade' this from Policy to juat a FAQ. I'll go ahead and do that shortly if there are no further objections. Thanks! Dreadstar † 03:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, no. This was always policy ever since it was spun off from the NPOV article since 2006. And read the archived discussion in 2006 at Talk:NPOV on the spin off; it was only allowed to be spun off on the condition that it remain policy or else it was to be folded back in. Odd nature (talk) 15:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The history of the spin-out of this FAQ from NPOV Policy was discussed at WP:NPOV/FAQ#Why is this FAQ a policy?, and followed up by a discussion at WP:NPOV/FAQ:Is a FAQ a Policy, which led to discussions on what to move to the actual NPOV Policy page Material to be transferred to a Policy page, and finalized by moving the Policy material from the FAQ to the actual Policy page, FAQ as Policy. Dreadstar ☥ 16:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hang on a sec - are you saying there should not be a FAQ for this policy? I'm unclear on what the reasoning is. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 16:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I was part of the original discussion to spin this off and party to the original compromise. And that compromise called for the content spun out of the NPOV policy to the FAQ to remain policy or to be rolled back into NPOV. This stood since 2006 and Dreadstar's unitlateral demotion of this page. Dreadstar, if you want to make such sweeping changes to part of the project's core policy, you're going to need the broad consensus of the community. Until you have that, please stop acting unilaterally to degrade this policy. FeloniousMonk (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I did not 'unilaterally' do anything, as I've indicated above and in my edit summaries, there were discussions that led to consensus that a FAQ shouldn't be a Policy and that the Policy material be moved to an actual Policy page instead of remaining on a FAQ page. Please do not mischaracterize my actions. Dreadstar ☥ 16:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It *was* on a policy page - the same NPOV page there is a heated discussion going on right now about the gutting of. Not seeing that because someone has removed content from the policy page without consensus, that suddenly the FAQ, which no longer reflects the policy due precisely to that gutting, should *also* be removed. IOW, you didn't move the FAQ contents back to the policy page; you're just talking about removing the FAQ. Or did I miss something here? KillerChihuahuaAdvice 16:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, with consensus a year ago, material deemed as Policy was moved from this FAQ to the NPOV policy page,

• FAQ Religion section moved to NPOV Religion section,
• FAQ Giving 'equal validity' section moved to NPOV Giving 'equal validity' section
• FAQ Making necessary assumptions section moved to NPOV Making necessary assumptions section
• FAQ Pseudoscience section moved to NPOV Pseudoscience section

After the Policy material was moved, then the FAQ was 'downgraded' from a Policy to a FAQ, . (If I missed any content of concern, please let me know.) Any 'suddenness' was in restoring the FAQ's policy status and older material from a year ago just because the NPOV policy page is under dispute. One of the main purposes of putting policy on a Policy page is as I described it previously:

"One of the problems with a FAQ being a policy is exactly why this page appears to be "longstanding policy," as Nathan points out below: "Inevitably a FAQ is going to draw less attention and scrutiny than the main policy, which has an impact on the level of consensus a FAQ can enjoy". We do not want pages with "less attention and scrutiny" to be Policy. If the material in this FAQ is policy, then you should have no trouble moving it into a highly trafficked Policy page like WP:NPOV. If NPOV policy is too long, then it's certainly inappropriate to move actual Policy off onto a FAQ. "Longstanding" is never an excuse for inappropriateness."

Dreadstar ☥ 17:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Wording of "Anglo-american bias"

"The Anglo-American focus is in part a reflection of there being so many U.S. and European Anglophone people working on the project, which in turn is a reflection of the fact that so many of them have access to the Internet."

I don't think latter part is a good formulation. It seems to imply that English-speaking people have a better access to the Internet than others. But this is not true: according to statistics, French- and German-speakers have an equally good access to the Internet. The wording should be changed to something like which in turn is a reflection of the fact that so many English-speakers like to edit the English Misplaced Pages. Offliner (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)